Rodriguez v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 29 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-56594.,12-56594. |
| Citation | 872 F.3d 908 |
| Parties | Jessie RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Mike MCDONALD, Warden, Respondent–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Tony Faryar Farmani (argued), Farmani APLC, Rancho Santa Fe, California, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Ryan M. Smith (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Respondent–Appellee.
Before: Harry Pregerson and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Robert S. Lasnik,* District Judge.
When Jessie Rodriguez was fourteen years old, a California jury found him guilty of second-degree murder and attempted murder. Because the government relied on a coerced waiver of the right to counsel to secure this conviction, we grant Mr. Rodriguez's request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On the evening of February 23, 2005, while Manuel Penaloza and Cynthia Portillo were walking near Gabanzo Park in Los Angeles, a brown minivan slowed and approached them.1 Mr. Penaloza saw two men in the van, the driver and a passenger. The passenger asked the couple, "Where are you from?" Mr. Penaloza understood this question as a gang challenge—a demand to know what gang Mr. Penaloza was affiliated with. He truthfully replied that he was from the Drifters gang. Instantly, shots were fired from inside the van. Mr. Penaloza was wounded
in the shoulder, and Ms. Portillo was shot in the head. Mr. Penaloza panicked and fled. Ms. Portillo did not survive. People v. Rodriguez , No. B194159, 2007 WL 4465197, at *1 (Cal. App. Super. Ct. Dec. 21, 2007). Roughly two hours later, Officer Carlos Langarica of the Los Angeles Police Department saw a brown van driving in Highland Park. By that time, he had received reports of the Gabanzo Park drive-by shooting and another such shooting that night. Because the van matched the description of the shooter's vehicle, Officer Langarica stopped the van. Id . at *2.
Angel Gomez was the van's driver; Richard Powell was the passenger. Two fully loaded handguns were recovered from the van, a .22 caliber revolver and a .25 caliber semi-automatic. Ammunition for those weapons was also recovered, along with an expended cartridge case and a leather glove. A live bullet was found in Mr. Powell's pocket. Id .
Detective Luis Rivera interviewed Mr. Gomez and Mr. Powell. Mr. Gomez and Mr. Powell implicated a person named "Husky" in the shooting. Detective Rivera determined that "Husky" was the gang moniker of Jessie Rodriguez. He obtained a photograph of Mr. Rodriguez and placed it in a six-pack photographic lineup, which he showed to the shooting victim Mr. Penaloza. Mr. Penaloza was very uncooperative. He pointed to two photographs—including Mr. Rodriguez's photograph—and said, Id .
Over a month later, on the morning of March 28, 2005, Detective Rivera and his partner, Detective Jose Carrillo, arrested Mr. Rodriguez at the juvenile probation camp where he was then living and brought him to the local police station for an interview. Id . At the time of his arrest and interview, Mr. Rodriguez was fourteen years old. He had completed ninth grade.
This interview was videotaped and transcribed. The following exchanges are excerpted from that transcript.
Before the officers delivered Miranda warnings to Mr. Rodriguez, they questioned him about his name, address, family, schooling, and juvenile record. They also asked whether he had any nicknames or tattoos:
After briefly asking Mr. Rodriguez whether he ever wore a mustache or a goatee, the officers delivered Miranda warnings as follows:
The officers then questioned Mr. Rodriguez about his involvement in the drive-by shooting. The officers repeatedly suggested that Mr. Rodriguez had been riding in the van with Angel Gomez, and that Mr. Gomez had pressured him to shoot Mr. Penaloza to prove his loyalty to the Highland Park gang. Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly denied being in the van during the shooting. In response, the officers repeatedly accused Mr. Rodriguez of lying and told him that others had already implicated him in the shooting. They showed Mr. Rodriguez pictures of Angel Gomez and Richard Powell, and told him that they knew the two men went by "Vamps" and "Away," respectively. They told Mr. Rodriguez that Mr. Penaloza had claimed that he saw both "Away" and Mr. Rodriguez at the scene of the crime, and that "Away" had already told the officers what happened.
Eventually, Mr. Rodriguez asked for an attorney:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Lewis
...findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness that can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.Rodriguez v. McDonald, 872 F.3d 908, 918 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Based on the foregoing, the undersigned now concludes that the state court's purely factual determin......
-
State v. Russaw
...waiver of that right—and any confession that follows—is presumptively invalid." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rodriguez v. McDonald , 872 F.3d 908, 926 (9th Cir. 2017). Our Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he initiation of conversation includes inquiries that can be fairly said to......
-
Tobias v. Arteaga
...Second, the methods used during the officers’ questioning were impermissibly coercive under the standards set forth in Rodriguez v. McDonald , 872 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2017). As a result of this improper interrogation, Tobias provided a detailed confession to the Castaneda murder, using (as i......
-
United States v. Rodriguez
...but that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the previously asserted right to counsel. Rodriguez v. McDonald , 872 F.3d 908, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). A knowing waiver is one "made with full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the dec......